Forum Post: How much is enough?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 4, 2011, 10:04 p.m. EST by MVSN
(768)
from Stockton, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
How much is a person in the business world allowed to earn? I am a small businessmen with 10 employees. I am not a millionaire ( most small businessmen aren't) but with all the anti- business/anti-capitalist ranting on this site I'm starting to wonder. No, I don't agree with the corporate corruption going on and yes we need change in this country. But nonetheless, how much profit am I allowed to make in your world? Who determines that?
You can earn as much as you possibly can. That's not the issue - the issue is making sure that the more you earn, the more tax you pay, and that your earnings cannot be used for political influence.
To many ( if not most) DO have a problem with how much capitalist business earns.
Opinions are not facts.
Have you read any other threads on this site?
Like I said ...
You can earn an unlimited amount but you must pay your workers a living wage and you can't use your money to buy politicians.
Not all work is equal and some jobs don't really deserve a high rate of pay. The market should determine what a job is worth. Who determines what a living wage is? Will the value of government assistance programs be figured in? By starting people at a higher level of pay will that eliminate any possibility of a raise for a long time?
Read all the posts below. I've tried to explain what a living wage is, should be, could be. It doesn't mean a high rate of pay. It means a rate of pay on which a human being can live a decent life. It would be set by geographic regions based on cost of living. Hopefully, if people are paid a living wage we wouldn't need government assistance. That is the point of a living wage.
Remember, employees have rights, too, even though today they have been severely reduced. Employees trade their labor for pay. So, they could just decide, no, you're not paying me enough. This is why a high unemployment rate is so detrimental to all of us. When there is high unemployment employees lose power. They can't switch jobs as easily and say no to a low wage. In reality, business likes a healthy unemployment rate because it keeps the employees down.
I have a problem with an artificial value placed on work. If it's a job anyone can do then it just isn't worth much. A living wage asks society to subsidize those mindless occupations. I also feel you are chasing an illusion. Force an employer to pay more and prices are just going to go up and we're back to where we started.
Everyone has their opinion. I, personally, don't want to live in a country where half of it's citizens are living in or near poverty. The U.S. is turning into a third world country. I think it's pathetic and would like to see change to make things better. And the value of work is not just set by the employer. It is also set by the employee. The employee does not have to trade his labor, no matter how menial it is, for a wage that keeps him or her in poverty.
Some of the poverty statistics are dubious. There are people with a negative net worth that are making large sums of money, their mortgage alone puts them there. As far as income goes census data shows about 13% of households earning $15000 or less, that qualifies them for a great deal of assistance making Americans in poverty fairly well off and no where near third world levels. Another 12% earn between 15,000 and $25,000, so we're looking at maybe one quarter close to poverty, not half. Many in that second group are young workers just starting up the salary scale.
To some extent poverty in the US is self inflicted, illegitimacy, early parenthood, dropping out, engaging in criminal activity, and drug use. These all tend to lead you to life at the lower end of the economic ladder. Poor decisions lead to poor prospects. This is just a statistical fact and there are exceptions. Simply supplying money to the poor is just a bandaid that enables a self-distructive cycle to continue.
I respectfully disagree. 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps. You have to be basically indigent to be able to qualify for food stamps. That statistic alone is enough for me.
I also don't agree about the social causes of poverty you list. Yes, many times people in poverty have problems but oftentimes it is the result of their situation. It's not that easy to get out of poverty if you have no disposable income to save. Have you been to the schools in any of the poorer districts. They get an unequal education. Much worse. They turn out ill-prepared. So, I think poverty is the result of one's environment (and I'm not saying that there aren't the rare cases where people can rise out of poverty) and capitalism. Capitalism has, at it's root, exploitation of labor productivity. The employer wants to keep the costs for labor as low as possible in order to make the most profit. If an employee is trying to survive and the unemployment rate is high, he/she has little option but to accept the low wage. Employers don't have to pay skimpy wages. They could decide to be happy with less profits and pay their employees a decent living wage.
Also, I'd rather live in a country where we don't need to give "assistance" to people. Wouldn't it be better to just pay them a dignified wage to begin with?
Food stamps provide a person with an additional source of income. They have shelter and food. They qualify for medicaid, their children get meals at school. They are poor only by the arbitrary measure made by government. I can't help what you believe, but there have been studies that show the factors I mentioned are common to many of those in poverty. It becomes a cycle one generation leading the next right back into it.
Yes I've seen schools in inner cities, been in them. The funding isn't the problem, they are well staffed and have the necessary equipment. Students enter with the social skills of two year olds. Fourth and fifth graders know more about the rules of the gang they plan to enter then anything in the curriculum. A class of 22 students where 7 are working on grade level, most of the rest are two years behind. Of those 15 one has two parents at home, both have done jail time, the others it's either a single mom, grandmother, or foster mom taking care of them. By the time they are 16 the majority of that group that started from behind will simply leave school. They are ill prepared for anything but gang life or crime and will continue the cycle by having their own illegitimate children and leaving them in the care of single moms who are little more then children themselves. We've built a trap for ourselves with our good intensions. The great war on poverty simply made it easy to live in poverty. I'm not sure what to do about it, but throwing money at the problem has only made it worse.
Now a living wage is becoming the new social experiment, giving an inflated value to labor. It would be nice to offer a "dignified" wage, but an employer offers what he feels the job is worth to him, most employers in the nation are not big corporations, they are small businesses. No one really knows what will happen if wages are increased by law to some higher level. Will employers curtail services, cut back on employees, sell out to the competition, raise their prices? Any change through government is slow and myopic, it would be nice if all public assistance ended, taxes on businesses dropped and the employers used that tax break to pay employees. That's a tall complex order.
Many of the items you address with regard to poverty are symptoms of poverty not causes. See JadedCitizen's post "The Poverty Myth" on this forum.
So, what is a person to do who has a low paying job that keeps him/her in poverty? Hope that someday his greedy employer will share a little more? Perhaps a living wage is not an inflated value to labor. Perhaps it is fair. If we had full employment (which business people loathe) I guarantee you employees would have the power to demand higher wages.
I can understand your worry about what affect a living wage would have, but I think it would be positive. People would have more money and demand would increase. It would be great. And, we wouldn't have people needing public assistance.
No you can't expect someone else to share their money with you. I see that sense of entitlement to what someone else has earned as one source of the problem.
For a while I worked in a liquor store, the owner schooled himself on wines and liquors, took out a loan risking his home and savings, was there most days all day. I was paid $10 an hour to ring the register and keep the shelves stocked, no investment at all. There was nothing he was obligated to share with me. I went in for 12 hours on the weekend, he paid me what we agreed to, plus the unemployment insurance, the disability insurance, and whatever else government said he had to do. Had he been forced to pay $15 or 20, he probably would have just done the work himself.
That's what the majority of corporations providing jobs are like in this country. However, even the Walton's don't owe anyone more then the promised wage. Their wealth isn't in the form of a pile of dollars hidden away going unused, it's in stock, inventory, and land holdings on which stores sit. They may not even have done much personally to earn it, but that doesn't give you the right to decide to take it from them or tell them how they have to spend it.
If you want to get out of poverty you need to work, find your own business to start, go to school (there is a school of nursing associated with a hospital, promise to work for several years at that hospital and you get your full tuition back). There are ways. Not everyone born in poverty stays there.
You see raising the wage as the end of it, but prices go up the moment costs rise. Gasoline went up it drove food prices and made everything else higher. Raising employers costs will make prices rise and simply change the official definition of poor in this country.
I've heard that argument before about going out and starting your own business. This economy could not possibly handle 300 million businesses. Low level jobs are a necessity. They are the nuts and bolts of business. One day employees will have the power to set their own wage, to say no to a low wage, and we'll see what happens. Those business owners will still want whatever profits are left over and wages will rise.
Very true, most people can't or won't start a business and most businesses go under in the first year or two. Employees don't have to carry that risk. When we become more socialist and employees can dictate their own wage through government we'll see if it solves the problem or only leads to inflation. Until then it's the employer's money not ours, supply and demand sets the rate of pay.
At least we're having the discussion. Something's got to change at some point. We can't go on like this.
living wage is vague. does that allow for ipads and macbook airs like the ones the hipster protestors carry?
I think it would include a home computer with internet hook-up and a cell phone, yes. Not necessarily overpriced ipads, macbooks and iphones (I have none of those). The living wage is not really that vague. It is an economic measurement. Here is one definition:
A theoretical wage level that allows the earner to afford adequate shelter, food and the other necessities of life. The living wage should be substantial enough to ensure that no more than 30% of it needs to be spent on housing. The goal of the living wage is to allow employees to earn enough income for a satisfactory standard of living.
That's a stupid definition. 30% is totally arbitrary. The market will pay what you're worth. A hamburger flipper should not have 70% disposable income.
No. That is an economic definition. I did not make it up. If you've ever applied for a mortgage, generally they want only 30% of your gross income to go toward your housing payment. Food, healthcare, education, transportation, heat and electricity all need to be part of the living wage.
1/2 of all Americans now earn $26,000 or less and are either in poverty or on the verge of poverty. Why would you argue against a living wage?
You say a hamburger flipper should not have 70% disposable income. Probably so, the 70% would be so little, he'd probably starve to death. He'd need much more. Say he makes a generous $8/hour. At 40 hours a week that's a whopping $320. Say he nets $250/week. That's a whopping $1,000 per month. Do you know of any rents at $300/month? In my town rents start at $1,200. He'd be homeless. I don't get your point or why you are arguing about this.
In a lot of smaller cities you can get a 2 bedroom place for about $600 per month. 2 people making $1000 per month would have no problem paying that rent.
Good point, and you show how the living wage is quite a complicated subject. Minimum wage where I live is $7.25/hour and rents are $1,200 and up. The living wage, if we ever had politicians working for us, would address these geographical differences. And, why should someone who works full-time have to have a roommate? Are you aware of how much wealth this country has? There is plenty of money to throw some crumbs to the folks at the bottom.
I was thinking more along the lines of a spouse than a roommate but I get your point.
The living wage concept would be pretty difficult to implement though. Here in New England you have towns like you mention where rents are $1500 and up but if you drive 20 minutes away you can get a decent place for $500-600 per month. So the living wage would have to be determined by the towns. But even then, you have great variation within towns. Business would be hurt in the towns with expensive rent because people working at Dunkin Donuts would have to be making $20 an hour.
And then there is the question of who at the top is responsible for throwing the crumbs. People making $100K or more? $250K? $1M?
I think it's doable. The living wage could simply provide enough money to live in the decent but cheaper town. Maybe the living wage could be based on counties to make it simpler. And, yup, another good point about who starts throwing the crumbs. I'd be fine with starting with people who earn $1 million/year or more. That is not someone worth $1 million, but someone whose income is actually $1 million/year. They certainly can toss a few crumbs down. Also, company profits can simply be divided more fairly to begin with. This is how it was in the early part of the century when people actually had jobs with defined benefit plans and decent pay and job security. How about a return to that?
I would have no problem raising taxes on those making more than $1M per year. Too often people are quick to point to the completely arbitrary number of $250K per year as rich when in reality a family with that kind of income is living much more like a middle class family than a truly wealthy family.
Yes. We have to be reasonable.
He wouldn't be homeless. Just get some roommates.
That's sad, elpinio. Come on. Don't you want more for your country?
What's sad? That a hamburger flipper has to live with roommates? It seems pretty reasonable to me. When I was poor, I had roommates. Lots of people making 100k+ in Manhattan have roommates because rent is so expensive in NYC. What's the big deal?
No. It's sad. Suppose the hamburger flipper has a family or wants a family and a decent life. Suppose he's not young. It's sad. I feel sad that you think that's okay. I don't know you, but I wish you could see the inequities that exist that don't have to exist. I'm not saying that we all have to be equal and that the rich can't be rich, but I do think our economic system has enough wealth in it that people should not have to worry every day of their life about how they're going to survive. It would be fine if the hamburger flipper could work his way up and in the old days that's how it was, but today there are no opportunities. That's why 1/2 of all Americans are borderline poverty. It's pathetic. We're turning into a third world country.
Here's a lesson. Before you have kids, make sure you are financially able to support them. It is morally irresponsible otherwise. So your hypothetical is a red-herring.
Also, what do you think the profit margins are for a hamburger joint? 2 to 5% at most. Raise labor costs, and the place is losing money. What happens to those kind of business? Bankruptcy.
Again. Sad. But, you're entitled to defend the 1% for whatever reason. I'm flabbergasted by the people in this forum that do so. It just amazes me. I think it has something to do with fear. Fear that someone will take what you have. It doesn't have to be that way, though. There really is enough to go around. The only ones taking anything from anyone are the 1%.
Usually when you forcibly take money away from someone and give it to someone else, it's called stealing. It doesn't become more palatable when the government does it. If you can't understand why people don't like this, you have no sense of fairness.
Look. A government is not a business. It has a responsibility to promote the general welfare of its citizens. If employees had the power that their employers had they'd turn down the ridiculously low paying jobs that offer little to no benefits while the CEO and company executives enrich themselves. The income disparity in this country has been exacerbated in recent years. 30 years ago the average CEO earned 40 times the average workers wage. Today the average CEO earns 343 times the average workers wage. Greed is the problem here. It's not about stealing. It's about fairness.
Times have changed. First, 30 years ago, there was no free trade and there were unions to jack up wages. Now, it's a global economy and you have competition from overseas. A foreign worker doesn't deserve 1/10th an American's wage just because he had the bad luck to be born in a poor country. American workers have to compete with foreign workers based on merit and value-added, and that is only fair.
Second, the disparity between CEO and workers' wages have increased, but is that because the CEO is overly rewarded? Or is it because the workers are worth less? As noted, foreign workers can now do work for cheaper. Also, this generation is lazier. Ask your parents.
They got to where they are by making Walmart the cheapest place to buy. If they needlessly raised wages, they wouldn't have made the money they have. Supply and demand. If you got the skills, demand more money or move to a better paying company. If you don't have the skills, suck it up or get the skills. Walmart isn't a charity fyi.
You do a good job of explaining how we got to this point, but it still doesn't make the situation we're in acceptable. We can't just sit back and say "Oh, well." Greed has taken over because of deregulation and the erosion of workers' rights. Me. Me. Me. That is all people think about. Corporations are more profitable today than ever before yet they are stingy with their employees (not the executives, of course). The profits of corporations could be doled out differently, more fairly. It would benefit the entire nation.
And, in no way do I believe this generation is lazier.
Also, did you know that 6 members of the Walton family of Wal-Mart have as much wealth as the bottom 30% of Americans. 6 people have as much wealth as 100 million people. Hard for me to understand why they couldn't pay Wal-Mart employees a bit more. I don't get it. Did these people not learn to share in kindergarten?
30 years ago unemployment was much higher than historical norms. All this greed talk is trivial.
Couldn't have put it better!
Maybe we should appoint the NCAA to oversee all potential candidates running for federal office. Although someone once said, all politics start at the local level. You will have a hard time trying to change state election laws with a Republic.
I can agree with that. But if government is considering legislation effecting my business am I not allow to try to influence them?
If the law that affects your business is put in place based on what the constituents want, then no, you shouldn't "influence" them.
If the law is put in place by the oligarchs to crush the competition then yes.
I'd say that you have the moral right to discuss the matter with your senator or representative. It's the mega donations that I find wrong.
CEO's who are hired hands should not be using shareholders' money to forward the CEO's political desires. That is doubly wrong.
But in your situation the oligarchs can't pass laws.
Point taken. I hadn't looked at it like that.
And you are still a constituent with a voice.
Well, you get to vote like any other American don't you?
Why should you have more influence than any other American?
Good point.
What of the legislation Wallstreet is writing that effects your business and profit?
What are you spending on lobbying?
Heck, what are you producing or selling?
What's your profit margin?
So why don't you find another site to whine at?
The tea party really needs you as member, they're imploding. I have read enough of your posts to realize this. Your lost here. They'll gladly welcome you there. It will nice warm and cozy for you. And then you even show respect since their your kind.
Good Luck! Really, your new home is waiting!
Hold on. Isn't the whole point that we are the 99%? no republicans no democrats no communists no liberals no conservatives. Arent we supposed to be all of the American citizens not having our voices heard due to the corruption of the system? Or am I missing something?
You aren't missing anything. And you are correct. Everyone is welcome here. I'm independent, and have yet to be made to feel unwelcome. Everyone I've talked to is against greed, corruption, and the exploitation of humanity for profit. Anything else we are doesn't matter. That's been my experience, anyhow.
EPluribusUnum says "Or am I missing something?*
Yeah, the train, it's leaving. Hurry!
YOU determine how much you make in profit, by your work ethic .
I thinks it the wrong question - there should be no limit. However, there should be fair checks and balances to prevent the 'I'll wash your back if you wash mine.." implicit culture that exists because CEOs and officers permeate each others boardrooms. Once again, it is the corruption based on rules made by the corrupt themselves at play.
Of course they'll decry any regulations that would less such abuse.
Any amount of profit is fair, if you realize that it is the result of your vision, and the hard work of the employees. Employees should be rewarded with a fair share in the profit.
Anti- business/anti-capitalist ranting on this site. This movement isnt either. You'll either listening to trolls or are one.
Highest-paid CEO collected $145.3 million in a year
http://money.msn.com/investing/latest.aspx?post=154c053e-214a-41a1-b72f-c70a9b7bedce&_nwpt=1
Who decides how much is too little, these are lifes mysteries. How can you look at one side of the coin and not see the other confuscius says. Poor man exclaims what is a coin.
As long as you earn your money honestly, pay your employees a fair wage for services rendered and treat them as human beings, you should be able to make as you can.
But you marxists set yourselves up as the arbiters of what it means to "treat them as human beings"... Don't you see that is where your arguments fail?
How would you like to be treated? Like a shit house rat?
In the "old"days when I was young the CEOs made about forty times that of the employees but now it is somewhere around three to four hundred times what the employees make.
The question you should ask yourself is how much you need not how much is enough.
I am glad you are one of the people who are putting people to work. I hope your desire to grow doesn't become unrestrained greed where you think it is better to outsource your work so you can make a few more bucks.
The concept of a business becoming a corporation needs to be reviewed, seriously. I personally think that if your business does well then you should show appreciation to those who are helping you make this success. Henry Ford paid his employees a good enough wage that they could buy his product. If he didn't then he would have gone out of business in no time.
If you are a business person then be fair to the workers that are helping you find this success and have ethics in what you do. That is honestly what OWS is all about once you scrape away the various opinions and self interests. It all comes down to people feeling that there is some sort of fairness in the system.
"In the "old"days when I was young the CEOs made about forty times that of the employees but now it is somewhere around three to four hundred times what the employees make."
I could be wrong, but I think that figure that is bandied about is based on the salaries of the top 300 CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. I don't think most CEOs make that kind of money, since there are far more small companies than big ones, and CEO pay at small businesses averages about $233K, according to CNN Money.
I agree with much of what you say. But one problem is that there are various people have a different ideas on what is fair. It is a very subjective thing and there will always be people who think that nothing can ever be fair. Some on this very site seem to be against any profit at all. To them for a business to be fair is impossible.
you can pay yourself any amount of money you want, you are KING. However who likes a unfair King? Spend the money on the poor, and your workers who earned it, as there is no way to take it with you. If you help others you will benefit in the spirit world, if you get there for the good you did here. But remember it is harder for a rich man to get into the spirit world than a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle, just a thought. I did some very different things When I ran my Corp. I made many friends out of my employees, who were treated like partners not hired hands (like they were).
I think it was Nassim Taleb called wealth a function of redundancy. How many cars can you drive? How many houses can you use? How much food can you eat?
Beyond a certain point, excess wealth absorption becomes a disease of the soul, and on society, especially when so many peoples' lives are destroyed and deprived in the process.
But such is the lot of a psychopathic economy: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-psychopathic-economics-101
i would say 500 million...
Honestly, I don't believe that is the issue. the issue is does a business treat their employees fairly?
does it attempt to influence municiple, state, or federal agencies or their agents in an effort to gain some thing, some advantage, at the expense of the public.
does a business engage in predatory pricing schemes, or attempt to drive out competition to the general harm of the specific market they serve and the consumer as a whole.
Stuff like that.
I mean, I hope you make a bundle, and your product is the cheapest, of the best quality, and your people are the happiest on the planet, you know?
Those sound like pretty reasonable statements. So you're not so much concerned about how much a person makes or a business earns in profit as long as they do it honestly. Since your against businesses using any schemes that would syphon money away from taxpaying citizens, then you are in favor of regulating businesses. I might vote for if you were running for office! I see a big problem with over-regulating business but at the same time government agencies not enforcing those regulations. Any thoughts?
I tend to agree - regulation needs to be carefully thought out and properly executed. Part of the problem we have today is the whole process of regulation becomes subject to sabotage and subversion from multiple directions at once.
I had a link around here somewhere pertaining to how the regulatory process gets so twisted up . . . .
If you look at the Nigerian Delta and the behavior of the oil industry, the protests of the Ogoni people, you can see some of the worst examples of how international companies exploit local societies - left unregulated they would do that here.
It is unfortunate that in 3rd world countries it is even easier for political leaders to be bought out than it is here. And with even less regulation than we have, those countries are just ripe for exploiting by large industry.
yeah-ya
The Nigerian Delta is a classic example. For the last 50 years they have suffered the equivalent of one PB oil spill every single year.
Those most articulate in their opposition to this exploitation have been hung by the neck.
The most famous of these was Ken Saro-Wiwa, executed November 10, 1995.
Not surprising. And it is very odd to me that for such a pro-environmental administration as we have in this country (offshore drilling almost completely banned for all intents and purposes) and then we turn around and pledge several $billion to Brazil to increase offshore drilling down there.
yeah - it is rather confusing
I don't know, but I suspect the pressure on the White House is intense.
Seems like we'd be pushing for more natural gas use at least. It's kind of like they don't want any kind of energy much less energy independence.
I think that a lot of what's going on in Congress is the result of considerations over energy policy - but that's a guess.
Sorry I'm bouncing back and forth between Facebook. Well I mean they don’t want oil but we use it in everything including heating our homes in a lot of cases. They were starting to warm up to nuclear before the Japanese disaster, coal is out and yet power companies have been able to remove about 80% of pollutants out of power plant emissions. There isn’t near enough solar power in place to make a dent. I live in Texas and we have lots of wind power but it will never be enough to replace conventional power sources. I just wish they would do something before gas is $6 per gallon and electric rates go through the roof. Ah, we’re probably getting off subject here a little..
[Deleted]
Interesting. So in a just world all people would earn the same amount of money?
In a just world money does not exist. It is a ridiculous system anyway. All the most brilliant inventors and creative thinkers in history were not motivated by money. They were motivated by the idea that their inventions would benefit many people.
Please stay in the real world. Money is not going away mo matter what political system dominates.
We'll see. The dollar is headed for collapse anyway. Keep creating money out of thin air and soon it's worthless.
[Deleted]
But who determines the value?
This is one of the more intelligent questions I've seen asked on these forums. And as a business owner, I think you already know the answer.
The answer is, 'the person willing and able to solve the problem for the least amount of return'.
Burger flipping is worth roughly $7/hour. Is that enough to be a 'living wage'? Maybe in some areas, probably not in others. But being a 'living wage' is irrelevant because fast food restaurants are filled with $7/hour burger flippers. Some of them are high school kids whose parents meet all their base needs and are simply looking for money on the side. Some are high school dropouts, or those without more valuable skills who have to compete with high school kid-level wage earners because no ability they possess allows them to command more than $7/hour from their employers. And some are post-grad educated individuals who, for whatever reason, pursued advanced studies in a field not valued by the marketplace. I could have spent 7 years and a hundred thousand dollars obtaining advanced degrees in gender studies and philosophy. I didn't do that because I figured the market's value for that competency isn't much higher than the market's value for a burger flipper.
I find a sense of both frustration and amusement in the arguments against living wage for minimum wage, and the fact that it's always argued that it's because their "worth" or, as you put it, "problem solving" is not enough to equal it.
One, why is it we automatically mention burger flipping and janitors/floor sweepers.etc? It's almost amusing how in everywhere I read this stuff, that's the automatic job offered up in examples. As if those are the only jobs that pay minimum wage or something.
Two, if none of these people showed up for work - not a single member of this "low wage" group that people say don't do anything important enough to earn a higher pay, decided to not show up - the country would probably shut down.
I'd say that makes their jobs important enough to deserve a living wage.
If your accountant tells you your business doesn't earn enough to pay your workers a living wage. Fire him. Because something's wrong with the books.
[Deleted]
Oh, it's alright, I know not everyone means it as an insult. But the other half do, so I don't know whether to be amused or not.
It's good that the company pays him a living wage. I have no problem with you earning more than him. My comment was more directed at what Seur said about them not commanding any job skills that allowed them to command more than the $7. I'm just frustrated at seeing that opinion tossed around. I know alot of these low-wage workers (I am one myself) and most of them know more about how things run on the job then the bosses they work under. People get so hooked on diplomas, they forget that in some industries, people can learn just as fast and well from experience and on-the-job training.
It's YOUR hard earned money and you can do with it what you want. If the employees dont like what your paying show them the door but in all cases the employee KNOWS what they will make and it's THEIR option to accept the job. If you want to use YOUR money to support a politician do it. It's YOUR money and YOU worked for it
The huge business corporations will keep you down as long as they can..Do you think you will have 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 employees someday? I hope you feel like occupy is for you. Just pay your fair share and good luck.
well you shouldn't own a business by yourself it should be employee owned first of all.
Ahhh... Now we are getting to the point of your kind. No surprises here.
scary to you to think that our kind is gonna soon win ha ha ha ha ha! eat the rich!
why should the employees not share in the wealth you wanna keep it all for yourself you greedy bastard don't you. scrooge.
Absolutely. Please keep posting and commenting. You murderous filth keep getting more and more obvious.....
Oh, and you ain't gonna win. You really stupid enough to think the 1% is your enemy? Keep believing that girlie...
Just stay out of that top percentile and I for one won't complain about your profits. Just stay out of that top percentile or at least near the low end of it until if and when they don't reap anywhere near 24% of all private income or hold 43% of all financial wealth in America.
You want a number? I'll give you one. Personal income $500,000 max. Thats about 10 times the pay of a firefighter. Thats enough. Anymore, and you're a pig. Say that reminds me.
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.
The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
Thank you for the honest answer.
You're welcome.
'Be the change.'-Gandhi As a business owner your goals with respect to employees should be along the lines of Henry Ford and to create positions thatallow employees to meet and exceed your local and most basic self supporting income(ie: entry level full time jobs that may include on the job training but do not create a private or public subsidy dependent population of citizens) If you cannot do that, start off with part time employees, 1099 independent contractors or associates-at least this will allow some to stay 'off the dole' perhaps longer than they normally would.
How much is enough? Unlimited as long as you too create private solutions that if more affluent and mega/multinationals did would eclipse those social programs that are for the most part the province of government and I'll trade 'government cheese' for that during hard times any day of the week!
Remember, it was the Mafia that set up alot of the soup kitchens in the 1930's long before the US Foodbank was started.
This is one of the best posts I've seen on this whole site. I agree with you and I try do right by my employees.
Thank you. I'm glad to see that you try to do right by your employees. As long as you do that you'll get people who really want to exceed expectations and should do fine.
As your business grows, by all means take a look at and begin to help out local places (especially the private ones) they do so much more for those who need it because their hands are not tied as tightly by government.
Here are a couple of examples of the kind of private efforts I'm talking about. When I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area there was and is a food pantry/crisis center called Monument Crisis Center on Monument Blvd. in Concord, CA and to me they are an excellent example of coordinating synergistic community involvement-you can look them up online. They are probably a kind of 'golden' example of what can be done to help out those in need and get local big business involved including Wells Fargo, Shell and Chevron. When I really needed them I was able to come by once per month and get supplemental fresh whole foods from them at no charge-it's not at all like Project Feedback which is explained below. In addition to the food pantry they will also work with people to help them get clothing, housing and medical care.
I'm here in Reno, NV now (we arrived here after Internet research and geographic crime checking sight unseen in 2010 before our savings and my UI ran out during this crazy time/husband's Veteran's Service Conncected pension is what we are living on for now since he was work injured about the same time my real estate and mortgage banking/broker company closed in 2008) There's a private foundation called Project Feedback for Veterans and they also have a sister project for civilians. What they do is stock their food pantry with whole fresh foods that as many of the local grocery stores and hotels including The Nugget give away at the end of their days simply because they have to 'move food stock' that would otherwise go into a dumpster. The food is available for $10 per person who is really needing that 'hand up' during economic hard times when perhaps one of a couple in a 2 earner family might not qualify for food stamps etc. or, of course, if they are on food stamps the $10 and one or 2 once per week visits allows them to have fresh foods such as produce, dairy, meats and eggs that would not otherwise be available to them (because a foodstamp card is only enough to cover about 2 to 3 weeks worth of whole, fresh foods, staples and maybe a few packaged products such as better quality whole wheat breads etc. used in the course of eating healthfully and cooking from scratch. If someone really doesn't know how to cook and purchases packaged and frozen foods, canned beverages and junk foods the card will only last them about a week and a half if that. The whole foods available in this way vs. the high sodium packaged, bleached and preservative laden packaged foods Govt. sponsored Foodbanks supply decided by the logistics of it really are not the best things to be eating for beyond a few months.
Others I have seen include Wardrobe for Opportunity and they were in the San Francisco Bay Area. What they do is provide donated business attire for men and women who lack the right clothing to get a job. They solicit for clothing donations so anyone cleaning out their closets can help out in that way-so many younger people just cannot afford to buy decent clothing, let alone work clothes so something like this addresses a critical need for those serious about getting to work without the resources to do so.
In closing, of course you too can start something similar once you are able and best to you with your business.
Sounds to me like you are part of the 99% with illusions that you might one day become part of the 1%. It is precisely such illusions on a mass scale, that the 1% depends upon to keep its unjust system in place.
No. I'm asking questions and refuse to suck up to every asshole socialist that comes along.
There is no reason to be rude. You had a serious question and I tried to provide a serious answer. I am sorry if I failed. I does sound like you are in the same boat as the rest of us, having to face the unjust power of giant corporations and the government they control.
Out here in California I know all about the Corportacracy.
In big corporations today the average CEO makes 500 times or more what an entry level employee makes. Perhaps we might disagree about how much more than your employees would be appropriate for you to make, but perhaps we could agree that a salary differential of 500:1 is unfair and unjust.
In big corporations today the average CEO makes 500 times or more what an entry level employee makes. Perhaps we might disagree about how much more than your employees would be appropriate for you to make, but perhaps we could agree that a salary differential of 500:1 is unfair and unjust.
Do you see a difference between "big corporation" CEO's, most of which are public companies, and private CEO's who many times have most of their time and life savings invested in a business? I do. The corporate CEO is a hired gun, being paid large salary and most times stock bonuses. In this regard, a 500 to 1 ratio seems ridiculous, even for the amount of education, skill, and training the CEO has. In private companies, the CEO has invested more time in the company, and an infinite amount more money. He/she is on the hook personally for real estate and business loans many times, the employees are not. The employees get paid for their work, and as long as it is a fair amount for the job, then no, I don't think they necessarily deserve to partake in the profits of the company after all expenses have been paid. If the owner so desires to have employee profit sharing, fine. Many give end of year bonuses based on the year's profits. Some just throw a Christmas party. But if the company LOSES money in a year, are the employees expected to refund the CEO money? No.
So why don't you find another site to whine at?
The tea party really needs you as member, they're imploding. I have read enough of your posts to realize this. Your lost here. They'll gladly welcome you there. It will nice warm and cozy for you. And then you even show respect since their your kind.
Good Luck! Really, your new home is waiting!
Very well said.
I'd say about tree fiddy
I'd give the Loch Ness Monster a lot more then Tree Fiddy.
nice :)
If $15 trillion isnt enough in debt, is there a limit and who decides the limit?
The banks do, of course.
Secretary of the Treasury and Goldman CEO Paulson thought $16 trillion was good.
What will Secretary of the Treasury, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and former director at the IMF Tim Geithner do when the $600 trillion derivatives bubble explodes?
Pretend it didn't happen, pass blame, and try to obtain another bank bailout. And just incase the people don't buy it, the government will deteriorate into a police state to 'protect' the politicians and and their cronies from an outraged mob of people.
I think we should all be taxed at the same rate, close the loopholes (until the holes are closed, brackets dont matter).
Earn away. Teh world needs movers and shakers.
How much is enough taxes? Do the people paying the taxes have a say in how those taxes are distributed out in the form of welfare. If you pay more taxes shouldnt YOU have the right to decided the limits that people receive?
Not what I'm asking.
nucleus was gentleman enough to give the baited OWS comment, "YOU can make as much as YOU want, but NUCLEUS has decided that YOU must pay more in taxes. That was his decision. The point of raising taxes is at the center of the original beginning of OWS. Obama failed at raising the debt blaming republicans, and knowing America supported a limit on debt. OWS started only a couple of days later to give him cover. We all know this movement started because the debt was not raised. You question read like it was written for an OWS FAQ webpage.
No, my question is asked by a real world person with concerns for his lively hood. With all the filthy Marxist/socialist ranting going on around here I think I can ask the OP. Obama whatever are corrupt. We all know that. I'm asking a simple question of you people screaming for the heads of businessmen. If you don't understand the question you have no business here. Go away.
I'm something of a socialist. I don't think that people should be able to make an unlimited amount of money. I really wouldn't mind rich people at all if this was a society that at least made sure everyone had somewhere to sleep and a decent healthy meal to eat. I wouldn't worry about small businesses though. My problem is more with the way the financial industry functions.
If you make a lot of money by running a successful business and you pay your workers a wage that can provide for their family I would have no problem with you keeping it. I wouldn't even want to raise your taxes most likely unless you were in a super high bracket. If on the other hand you took that capital and invested it and made a killing then I think you should pay higher taxes on that profit.
I consider myself a socialist because I believe that important, necessary industries, especially the ones that can't even stay in business without taxpayer subsidies, should be publicized. Energy, insurance, pharmaceutical, etc. These industries have no reason to be for profit. Definitely not the ones that are just stealing resources from the ground and selling them back to the people who live there. Maybe there would be some problems initially but I think they could all eventually be run much better and safer and cheaper by the state.
Does this answer any of your questions?
Some. But I do thank you for giving me an intelligent answer. :)
Say he took his capital and LOST money. Would he get larger write-offs based on his loss if he was going to have to pay higher taxes if he made money? I thought the objective was to have more employment at good wages. Don't we want people risking their capital, investing it, in order to pay for more inventory, buy new facilities, hire more people? As long as you keep the risk-reward ratio the same, you will get investment. When you deincentivize investment, when the potential reward is less than the risk of loss, you will get less investment.
It should depend on what kind of investment and the impact it will have. I think that the people of the world should have a say in what is a positive investment. If somebody wants to invest in something terrible that hurts people and their communities and threatens the ecosystem then they should take full risk and if they lose their money too fucking bad. If people want to invest in positive things then those investments should have some sort of protection to encourage the economy to be based off of what has a positive impact. As I understand it the way things are going now the people with the easiest access to large amounts of capital are able to make ridiculously high risk investments and making their losses public while paying the lowest amount of taxes on their profit than ever before. The current capital system is detestable and every decent conscious person knows it. If this was an actual democracy the people would be able to persuade good investment. This is the only alternative I can see apart from total expropriation of large industries. So I guess the capitalists can have a choice. They can work for or through the state and have very little control of private capital to amass fortunes or they can submit to the will of the people and invest in green energy, building infrastructure, and things of that sort.
Let's get one thing clear. There shouldn't be any bailouts period, and there should be a firewall between the financial system and the economy. If they want to play games and make bets, fine. If people are stupid enough to invest in hedge funds or derivatives, they're stupid enough to lose all their money. I'm talking about your average run of the mill entrepreneur that owns a business that is making decisions on where to invest his capital. He/she will invest in green energy if it can make a profit, they'll even invest in highway systems if they can be tollroads and they can be returned their money with a profit. Many things that you might deem "terrible" or that "hurt people" might be seen by another group of people as providing a lifeline for scarce jobs. The Keystone pipeline is an example. Many are protesting it and others are clamoring to have the jobs building it and the eventual supply of energy that comes from it. I believe the oil and gas industry should not have any subsidies whatsoever, and that clean energy should then compete with it. There shouldn't be any subsidies for anyone. You can't get around cost factors without dictating to the public. That is why liberals have such a hard time convincing people. Because most everything they wish for would never be voluntarily agreed to by the public. They must have court intervene or pass laws which dictate certain behaviors, much like Obamacare. And Americans don't like being told what to do.
The Keystone pipeline will only create temporary jobs and in the long run jobs will be lost. It makes production more convenient for investors who are a small minority compared to the people who will be affected by it by taking it from one giant source in one part of the world and just moving the oil over a large distance. Investors don't have the interest of creating more jobs. They have an interest in making as large a profit as possible. If they can invest in something that can be done with less labor it is to their benefit. This is why the people should have more control of where the capital goes to. It is in the majority's interest to create jobs not private capitalists.
So why don't you find another site to whine at?
The tea party really needs you as member, they're imploding. I have read enough of your posts to realize this. Your lost here. They'll gladly welcome you there. It will nice warm and cozy for you. And then you even show respect since their your kind.
Good Luck! Really, your new home is waiting!
So why don't you find another site to whine at?
The tea party really needs you as member, they're imploding. I have read enough of your posts to realize this. Your lost here. They'll gladly welcome you there. It will nice warm and cozy for you. And then you even show respect since their your kind.
Good Luck! Really, your new home is waiting!
If everyone agreed with OWS ideas there would be no need for this site because everyone would be agreeing. It appears like you have a movement that by default must encourage outsiders to come in. Why do you have a site that YOU think, everyone agrees with?
Thanks for pointing this out. We can discuss ideas, come one, come all, but do show some respect, free speech does not give anyone the right to do harm to others in their pursuit of freely speaking. With your right to free speech you also have a responsibly to treat others with respect and empathy.
Yes, in fact, I do believe this is why we're here!!!
I have no time for anyway who crosses the line and insults. I the puzzler do not talk to these posters other than call them by their proper name: TROLL
Typical.
NOT yet. It's just beginning.
Go away little Red.